Speaker 1: I've often joked that the most liberal publication in the
Speaker 1: United States of America is not, you know, the New
Speaker 1: York Times, not the Washington Post. It's actually the New
Speaker 1: England Journal of Medicine. And it's symptomatic. And indeed that
Speaker 1: is true my whole life growing up, both my parents
Speaker 1: being doctors, we always there was always a copy of
Speaker 1: New England Journal of Medicine hanging around the house. And
Speaker 1: my mom still gets it and reviews it very thoroughly,
Speaker 1: and you know, it is important for them to kind
Speaker 1: of keep up with what was going on in trends
Speaker 1: in medicine and scholarship and things like that, and it's
Speaker 1: one of the most important medical journals in the country.
Speaker 1: But boy howdy, any time the New England Journal of
Speaker 1: Medicine straight into anything that had anything to do with
Speaker 1: questions of social or cultural import they would always reliably
Speaker 1: come out on the most left wing side of the
Speaker 1: issue possible, or even if they didn't necessarily like I
Speaker 1: don't think the New England Journal of Medicine was like
Speaker 1: totally like pro physician assisted suicide, for example, but they
Speaker 1: certainly would publish op eds from people who were Now
Speaker 1: this is symptomatic of a really bad, larger problem within
Speaker 1: the practice of medicine, which is the complete capture of
Speaker 1: medical academia by the left. In spite of the fact
Speaker 1: that I don't know that actual doctors, actual healthcare practitioners,
Speaker 1: are actually that much more liberal, that much more socially liberal.
Speaker 2: Than your average profession is. You know, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I think if you pulled doctors, I don't know that
Speaker 1: they would be that much more inclined to vote for
Speaker 1: Democrats rather than Republicans than maybe even the general population.
Speaker 1: In spite of the fact that I don't know that
Speaker 1: doctors in general are that left leaning. Certainly, all of
Speaker 1: the major professional association or many of the major professional
Speaker 1: associations of doctors are extremely left wing.
Speaker 2: A COG.
Speaker 1: For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is
Speaker 1: super duper left wing and super duper pro abortion and
Speaker 1: all kind all kinds of bad things. So I stumbled
Speaker 1: across this a new lexicon for talking about and speaking about.
Speaker 2: First trimester pregnancy.
Speaker 1: And this was published by the Society for Radiologists in Ultrasound,
Speaker 1: and it was pushed out by the Journal of Radiologists
Speaker 1: called Radiology. It was indorsed. This lexicon was endorsed by
Speaker 1: a large number of other professional associations including I believe ACOG.
Speaker 2: Was also supportive of this, including ACOG.
Speaker 1: And what this is is basically, it's guidelines for radiologists
Speaker 1: and scenographers.
Speaker 2: About how to talk about.
Speaker 1: Various kinds of issues within first trimester pregnancy. And obviously
Speaker 1: this is an effort. If this is something that's endorsed
Speaker 1: by a COG, this is going to be something that's
Speaker 1: going to impact impact not just how sonographers talk, how
Speaker 1: radiologists talk, but probably how obstetricians talkcology, how obstetricians talk.
Speaker 1: This is going to impact the provision of early pregnancy care.
Speaker 1: The piece was published in the journal so that this
Speaker 1: new lexicon, basically new terminology that's going to be used
Speaker 1: surrounding first trimester pregnancy was published in the journal Radiology.
Speaker 1: Here are the highlights slash low lights of what this
Speaker 1: is doing, and you'll see how this is impacting the
Speaker 1: abortion debates, but also how cultural liberalism is impacting what
Speaker 1: we have consistently thought of as the sort of a
Speaker 1: political value neutral field of medicine. How medicine is being
Speaker 1: and we've we've got a glimpse of this during COVID,
Speaker 1: the way that scientific research and medicine was being so
Speaker 1: heavily politicized in the service of really day to day
Speaker 1: humdrum political arguments. Like I remembered this with regards to vaccines. Okay,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, we learned that the COVID vaccine,
Speaker 1: after the initial you know, the initial pledges were, oh,
Speaker 1: it's ninety nine percent effective at preventing transmission, then we realize, actually,
Speaker 1: the COVID vaccine does very little to prevent the transmission
Speaker 1: of COVID.
Speaker 2: That really, all that it does is.
Speaker 1: It seems to prevent you from getting like the real
Speaker 1: kind of extreme and bad outcomes from COVID. But you know,
Speaker 1: people have had six COVID shots, have gotten COVID four times.
Speaker 1: It doesn't really do much to prevent you from getting COVID.
Speaker 1: It just prevents it from being you know, incredibly aggressive
Speaker 1: and life threatening. So one of the things we then
Speaker 1: saw were different kinds of dictionaries online resources that redefined,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, the word vaccine to means, to
Speaker 1: change the word from a kind of intervention designed to
Speaker 1: inoculate to something more like a kind of intervention to
Speaker 1: reduce the severity of a disease. And there were real serious,
Speaker 1: reputable dictionaries that were changing the definition of words, and
Speaker 1: not just any words, but scientific and medical words, changing
Speaker 1: their definitions at the service of a day to day,
Speaker 1: humdrum political dispute, which I think demonstrated to so many
Speaker 1: people that the practice of medicine is in various respects
Speaker 1: or in various quarters, or certainly at the level of
Speaker 1: the kinds of things that the federal government was funding
Speaker 1: for research purposes under Anthony Fauci, under Francis Collins, that
Speaker 1: this wasn't a value neutral pursuit of truth, a value
Speaker 1: neutral desire to heal, but that there were political things
Speaker 1: getting mixed in with all this. A similar thing is
Speaker 1: happening right now with radiology, sonographers, ultrascenographers, and with obstetricians
Speaker 1: and gynecologists with how they talk about the embryo. I
Speaker 1: want to dig into this later on Right to Life Radio,
Speaker 1: but I just saw this and I think it's fascinatingly terrifying.
Speaker 1: Here are some of the key results of this new
Speaker 1: lexicon that these professional associations of radiologists are trying to
Speaker 1: promote for healthcare practitioners. Looking at first trimester pregnancy first,
Speaker 1: getting rid of any indication that there is heartbeat early
Speaker 1: on in pregnancy within the first trimester. Cardiac activity is
Speaker 1: now the new word to replace words like heartbeat or
Speaker 1: heart motion. Why why is this happening? Well, basically, it
Speaker 1: appears to be quite plain that these societies of professional radiologists,
Speaker 1: in spite of talking about fetal or you know, fetal
Speaker 1: heartbeat as starting at six weeks, everyone talked about heartbeat
Speaker 1: and that heartbeat happens about six weeks into pregnancy from
Speaker 1: the last menstrual period. At about the six week point
Speaker 1: in pregnancy, you can detect fetal heartbeat. Well, what happened?
Speaker 1: A bunch of states Florida, Georgia several others passed state
Speaker 1: laws to outlaw abortion once fetal heartbeat can be detected.
Speaker 1: Pro lifers were saying that you can detect a heartbeat
Speaker 1: at six weeks. The mealy mouthed response from the left
Speaker 1: that this idea only emerges.
Speaker 2: After this political controversy arises to.
Speaker 3: Say, well, it's not really a heartbeat because the four
Speaker 3: chambers of the heart aren't completely formed. It's more like
Speaker 3: cardiac activity. We were calling this heartbeat for forever, but
Speaker 3: now all of a sudden because there is a successful
Speaker 3: political effort on the pro life side to say, look,
Speaker 3: one of the things that we always think of as
Speaker 3: characteristic of human life is a heartbeat. If your heart
Speaker 3: stops beating, your dead now, I would say a human
Speaker 3: organism pre development of any cardiac activity, I would say,
Speaker 3: is also a living human organism.
Speaker 1: Still, but basically, what these pro life states said was, look,
Speaker 1: if there's a detectable heartbeat.
Speaker 2: We're not doing any abortions.
Speaker 1: These professional societies of radiologists, along with ACAG want to
Speaker 1: eliminate any mention that. They don't want to say the
Speaker 1: word heartbeat. Why because they're so left wing that and
Speaker 1: so insistent on legal abortion that they basically are just
Speaker 1: trying to change the whole terminology, the whole lingo utilized
Speaker 1: in the practice of medicine, just to undercut a couple
Speaker 1: of state laws that have been passed Florida, Georgia and
Speaker 1: a few others.
Speaker 2: This is insane.
Speaker 1: It's cardiac muscles rhythmically moving. We've called that heartbeat for
Speaker 1: it's cardiac tissue rhythmically moving, beginning the process of pumping blood,
Speaker 1: pumping blood, nutrients, oxygen, et cetera. Through the organism that's
Speaker 1: called heartbeat. We've called that heartbeat for forever. Ultrascenographers from
Speaker 1: Sea to Shining Sea. They get a pregnant lady in there,
Speaker 1: they do an initial ultrasound.
Speaker 2: Oh, we can detect heart beat. It's c really enough,
Speaker 2: we can detect heart beat. Oh no, do you do?
Speaker 2: You then have like mister Well, actually pop.
Speaker 1: Into the into the room where the where the lady's
Speaker 1: getting her ultrasound. Her husband's there, he's got the jelly
Speaker 1: stuff on her belly doing the ultrasound.
Speaker 2: Oh, there's fetal heartbeat.
Speaker 1: Actually it's not the four chambers, the four ventricles the
Speaker 1: heart have not completely developed.
Speaker 2: This is more.
Speaker 1: Cardiac rhythmic activity, not heartbeat. They're going to change the
Speaker 1: whole lingo here purely because Republicans were able to pass
Speaker 1: a couple of bills in like four states. This is insane.
Speaker 1: When we return, there's more.
Speaker 2: We're not going to.
Speaker 1: Refer to first trimester, first trimester embryos or fetuses. We're
Speaker 1: not going to refer to first trimester embryos as living.
Speaker 2: We'll dig into that next on the John Girardi Show.
Speaker 1: Medical associations, which are completely dominated by the left, are
Speaker 1: trying to change the language. You change the language, you
Speaker 1: change what people believe surrounding first trimester pregnancies. Is a
Speaker 1: new piece, a lexicon of terminology that was published in
Speaker 1: the journal Radiology and is supported by a cog about
Speaker 1: how to talk about first trimester pregnancy. First, we're gonna
Speaker 1: this new way of talking about first trimester pregnancy includes
Speaker 1: not referring to any kind of cardiac activity as heartbeat.
Speaker 1: Why not because it's not true, Not because it's not accurate.
Speaker 1: It's cardiac muscle, it's beating heartbeat, Not because it's not true,
Speaker 1: but basically because Republicans in pro life states have passed
Speaker 1: state laws to limit abortion after field heartbeat can be detected.
Speaker 1: Here's other stuff that these professional associations are trying to change,
Speaker 1: as far as our language not refra ring to the
Speaker 1: embryo in the first trimester as a live, living, well,
Speaker 1: let's stop there. Not wanting to refer to the embryo
Speaker 1: as a live or living now this is even more insane.
Speaker 1: Here's what they have to say. The terms live, living,
Speaker 1: and viable have been used frequently to refer to any
Speaker 1: pregnancy with cardiac activity. We recommend against the use of
Speaker 1: all these terms in the first trimester. Live and living
Speaker 1: are best avoided because these terms may be appropriated by
Speaker 1: people outside of the field of medicine to support political
Speaker 1: rhetoric and pros descriptive legislation. In addition, these terms may
Speaker 1: raise unrealistic expectations for patients facing potential pregnancy loss or EPs. Okay,
Speaker 1: let let's let's go here. They don't want to refer
Speaker 1: to a human organism in the first trimester as living
Speaker 1: because pro lifers might then want to protect that human organism.
Speaker 1: It's not because it is inaccurate. Clearly, the embryo in
Speaker 1: the womb is alive. And by the way, don't don't
Speaker 1: start with any okay, the definition of biological life. Okay,
Speaker 1: that applies to things like amiebas and single celled organisms.
Speaker 1: All right, the human organism from the minute you have
Speaker 1: egg sperm fusion, the egg and the sperm meat and
Speaker 1: form a new cell called a zygote, that is the
Speaker 1: first cell of you. That is when your life as
Speaker 1: a distinct individual human organism with your DNA, your composition
Speaker 1: of chromosomes. That is when your life as a new,
Speaker 1: unique organism begins. If you want to make arguments about
Speaker 1: all your life is only valuable after heartbeat, or only
Speaker 1: valuable after brain active brain activity can be detected, or
Speaker 1: only valuable after you're born, or Okay, whatever your biological
Speaker 1: life began there that is not in dispute. That is
Speaker 1: biological fact. You can look it up in a biology textbook.
Speaker 1: That is, when your life as a single individual organism begins.
Speaker 1: The unborn, the the embryo, which is the early development
Speaker 1: human for the first six weeks of pregnancy. The fetus,
Speaker 1: which is six weeks of pregnancy onward during pregnancy is living.
Speaker 1: It is a living biological organism, unquestionably, undeniably. That is
Speaker 1: true every bit as much as a single cell organism
Speaker 1: is a living organism and amiba is a living organism,
Speaker 1: a mushroom is a living organism, a plant is a
Speaker 1: living organism.
Speaker 2: A squirrel is a living organism.
Speaker 1: So is.
Speaker 2: An embryo or a fetus. It is clearly living. These
Speaker 2: professional associations of.
Speaker 1: A COG, the American College of Obstricians Gynecologists sonographers, are
Speaker 1: trying to push the idea that doctors should not call
Speaker 1: the first trimester unborn human living. Why because pro lifers
Speaker 1: might use that to push pro life legislation.
Speaker 2: This is insane. Let me let me give you. Let
Speaker 2: me tell you a couple of treat things. As they
Speaker 2: said on the Sopranos.
Speaker 1: If you don't tell a woman that her embryo is
Speaker 1: living before she has an abortion, I think that is
Speaker 1: definitionally not informed consent. Of course, by the way, for
Speaker 1: a woman who wants to keep the baby, what are
Speaker 1: you gonna say to her? Clearly, for an embryo or
Speaker 1: or a fetus who's beyond the point where cardiac activity,
Speaker 1: heartbeat has begun, the absence of heartbeat is the single
Speaker 1: biggest indicator that a miscarriage has happened. How are you
Speaker 1: going to talk about this? If you can't use the
Speaker 1: terminology of alive or not alive, it's not going to
Speaker 1: make sense. Well, you've experienced pregnancy, lass so the baby's dead.
Speaker 1: Well it was never a live per se. What are
Speaker 1: you talking about that? That's not reality Biologically, this is
Speaker 1: a living organism. You're just gonna say it's not alive.
Speaker 1: And they're explicit about it. They're explicitly saying in this piece,
Speaker 1: I just read it to you for obatim. They don't
Speaker 1: want to call it alive. Terms like live and living
Speaker 1: are best avoided because these terms may be appropriated by
Speaker 1: people outside of the field of medicine.
Speaker 2: Ding Ding ding Ding, like John.
Speaker 1: Girardi to support political rhetoric and prescriptive legislation. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's they're totally explicit about it. They are totally explicit
Speaker 1: about the idea that pro life people calling on born
Speaker 1: children alive is bad because it might lead people to
Speaker 1: conclude that these gosh darn embryos are like valuable or something.
Speaker 1: So for that reason, we're gonna we're gonna call black white,
Speaker 1: We're gonna call a living organ We're not gonna admit
Speaker 1: that this living organism is living. I mean, it's unbelievable.
Speaker 1: They're also getting rid of the term viability, which frankly
Speaker 1: I am I am wondering why that is happening. I
Speaker 1: think it's in part to get them to a point
Speaker 1: where they can do later in later term abortions. There
Speaker 1: are some restrictions on abortion's post viability, some restrictions not
Speaker 1: very strong, ones that exist in fact entirely flimsy ones
Speaker 1: that exist in California. I think they want to get
Speaker 1: rid of that distinction completely. But this is this is
Speaker 1: what we are up against, the left wing control of
Speaker 1: so many professions, which came about because of the left
Speaker 1: wing domination of academia. And you know what, the last
Speaker 1: thing I'll conclude here with this piece, it just erases
Speaker 1: the existence of pro life doctors. You know how many
Speaker 1: doctors out there don't like abortion, don't want to do abortions,
Speaker 1: think abortion is morally wrong. There are millions of them.
Speaker 1: As I said, I don't know that doctors are that
Speaker 1: much more liberal than many other professions in society. There
Speaker 1: are certainly millions of doctors, healthcare practitioners throughout the country
Speaker 1: who don't like abortion at all. And just to act
Speaker 1: as though there's no debate here, that the op for
Speaker 1: a professional association of physicians to act as though the
Speaker 1: abortion question is a completely set debate for one side.
Speaker 2: Is complete. It's nonsense.
Speaker 1: It's just erasing millions of healthcare practitioners who don't want
Speaker 1: to do this.
Speaker 2: You can read about it.
Speaker 1: I've tweeted about it at my Twitter account Twitter dot
Speaker 1: com slash presdo Johnny at Fresno Johnny when we return
Speaker 1: giving people one hundred and fifty thousand dollars for home
Speaker 1: buying assistance and opening this up to illegal aliens.
Speaker 2: That is next on the John Girardi Show.
Speaker 1: I'm not exactly sure what the liberal position is on
Speaker 1: illegal immigration at this point. Kamala Harris seems to be
Speaker 1: tacking hard to the right, and she seems to be
Speaker 1: following the polling. The polling which indicates that Americans were
Speaker 1: highly dissatisfied with President Biden's performance on immigration, that they
Speaker 1: want more restrictive immigration measures, that there's more American support
Speaker 1: for deportation.
Speaker 2: Measures than there ever have been.
Speaker 1: And all of a sudden, Kamala Hayres is coming out,
Speaker 1: Oh she's immigration crackdown cowgirl. That you know that the
Speaker 1: first three years of the Biden administration letting in millions
Speaker 1: of undocumented people with almost no vetting oopsies, and the
Speaker 1: relatively more stable last six months after Biden issued an
Speaker 1: executive order that he could have issued on day one,
Speaker 1: or he could have just maintained the Trump policies which
Speaker 1: were keeping illegal immigration at fairly low levels. That that
Speaker 1: is that, Oh, yes, you should thank us for getting
Speaker 1: immigration under control after we made immigration get out of control.
Speaker 1: I heard someone that's the kind of thing I heard
Speaker 1: someone criticize Kennedy for that John Kennedy gets a lot
Speaker 1: of credit for getting America out of the Bay of
Speaker 1: Pigs disaster and not a lot of blame for getting
Speaker 1: us into the Bay of Piggs disaster. It seems it
Speaker 1: seems like it's kind of this weird thing where it's like, Oh,
Speaker 1: we give you credit for getting us out of this
Speaker 1: mess you created. So I'm really kind of not sure
Speaker 1: what exactly the Democrat position is on immigration. The Democrat
Speaker 1: position on immigration, like as recently as like two years ago,
Speaker 1: was basically to try to give this impression that there
Speaker 1: there's essentially nothing wrong with it and that any Republicans
Speaker 1: screaming about it were just racists. And maybe the California
Speaker 1: Democratic Party hasn't caught on yet.
Speaker 2: And by the way, I don't think you need to be.
Speaker 1: Like a huge protectionist some kind of.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: I think there's a lot of space for a more
Speaker 1: reasonable middle policy of we need to have a much
Speaker 1: more secure border and rigorous standards, and maybe we can
Speaker 1: find more reasonable ways for regulating immigration. But America already
Speaker 1: allows a ton of legal immigration. The idea that America
Speaker 1: isn't already incredibly generous with its legal immigration policies I
Speaker 1: think is ridiculous. Now there's a piece in GV wire
Speaker 1: reporting on a state, a piece of state legislation here
Speaker 1: in California, where I think California Democrats haven't caught up
Speaker 1: with Kamala Harris's sort of newfound border crackdownism to such
Speaker 1: an extent that I even saw some story that Harris
Speaker 1: softly supporting building fencing.
Speaker 2: Or wall, building the border wall, or something like that.
Speaker 1: Anyway, So here's a story in California, though, where California's
Speaker 1: legislature seems to continue with the mindset of there is
Speaker 1: literally nothing wrong with illegal immigration. There's literally no and
Speaker 1: almost to the point of saying, there is no way,
Speaker 1: shape or form that we in California are going to
Speaker 1: do anything to penalize anyone who is here unlawfully.
Speaker 2: You can get medical, you can get this, you can
Speaker 2: get that.
Speaker 1: We're not going to have ICE cooperate, We're not going
Speaker 1: to have state officials cooperate with ICE, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: Here's a story about a bill that the California State
Speaker 1: Senate voted for on Tuesday to allow illegal aliens, undocumented immigrants,
Speaker 1: whatever you want to call it. People who are not
Speaker 1: in the country legally eligible for up to one hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty thousand in down payment aid to buy a home.
Speaker 1: And I want to get into this because I think
Speaker 1: it's so it's kind of a ridiculous story from a
Speaker 1: number of ankles. A bill from a SEMIBLY member Joaquin
Speaker 1: Arambula Fresno Zone would expand California's down payment and assistance
Speaker 1: program for first time home buyers, regardless of immigration status.
Speaker 1: At least one lawmaker says it takes opportunities away from
Speaker 1: a high demand program. Well, it clearly does, which you'll
Speaker 1: figure that out as you read the story. Assembly Bill
Speaker 1: eighteen forty past the California Senate on Tuesday, providing up
Speaker 1: to one hundred and fifty thousand dollars in closing cost
Speaker 1: and down payment assistance to first time home buyers. Arambula,
Speaker 1: in a statement, said that home ownership creates financial stability.
Speaker 1: The social and economic benefits of home ownership should be
Speaker 1: available to everyone. Arambula said, as such, the California Dream
Speaker 1: for All program should be available to all again for
Speaker 1: people who are living in the state illegally. That would
Speaker 1: seem to me to be precisely the kind of people
Speaker 1: for whom.
Speaker 2: Buying a house.
Speaker 1: Setting up a permanent domicile that you live in seems
Speaker 1: to me like a bad idea. And frankly, it seems
Speaker 1: to me, I guess I'd be amazed if I were
Speaker 1: a bank, you know, would I want to give a
Speaker 1: mortgage to someone who's living here illegally, who legally speaking,
Speaker 1: could be deported at you know, at the snap of
Speaker 1: a finger, at the change of a presidential administration. Arambula's
Speaker 1: office declined an interview with GV Wire. However, State Senator
Speaker 1: Janet Wynn, a Republican from Huntington Beach, said in a
Speaker 1: post on x that making undocumented immigrants eligible for home
Speaker 1: buyer assistants takes away from others seeking to benefit from
Speaker 1: the program. Well, no kidding, she says, quote, I spoke
Speaker 1: out today on this Senate floor against eighteen forty assistance
Speaker 1: for first time home buyers. Veterans are beneficiaries of this program,
Speaker 1: and it will be rating their fund and win said
Speaker 1: in the post, I will always look out for our
Speaker 1: veterans in military. Now here's the thing, and I'm a
Speaker 1: little unclear. I mean, yes, some veterans might happen to
Speaker 1: be part of this program. I'm not sure that it
Speaker 1: was a program exclusively for them. But here's the ridiculous
Speaker 1: thing about this, all right, So this program existed last year,
Speaker 1: this program for California state funded assistance for first time
Speaker 1: home buyers up to one hundred and fifty thousand dollars
Speaker 1: in assistance with your down payment and your closing costs.
Speaker 1: That's a crapload of money. So this program existed in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three. This bill from Joaquin Arambula would add
Speaker 1: undocumented immigrants, illegal aliens, people who are not legally supposed
Speaker 1: to be here to the pool of people who'd be
Speaker 1: eligible to get this one hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: But the thing is, there are already too many people
Speaker 1: applying for too few you know, allocations of money within
Speaker 1: this program. The fund was completely exhausted last year in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three. The story continues. In twenty twenty three,
Speaker 1: California set aside three hundred million dollars in the California
Speaker 1: Dream for All program. The funds were exhausted within eleven
Speaker 1: days as two thousand, one hundred and eighty two applicants
Speaker 1: received help. According to Senator Tony Atkins's Office. The California
Speaker 1: Housing Finance Agency called the program dramatically oversubscribed in its report. Okay,
Speaker 1: so let's let's do the picture here. Had we had
Speaker 1: the program last year, it was three hundred million dollars
Speaker 1: allocated to help people first time home buyers with up
Speaker 1: to one hundred and fifty thousand in downpayment and closing
Speaker 1: cost assistance. The funds were exhausted within eleven days. Twenty
Speaker 1: one hundred people got it. So here's this program for
Speaker 1: which there is way more demand than there are available funds.
Speaker 1: It's very few people are going to be able to
Speaker 1: get this benefit, and it just happens, you know, whoever
Speaker 1: happens to be first in line. I guess so, Joaquin
Speaker 1: arambuellill want first of all, why would you want to
Speaker 1: add anyone to the pool of who's eligible? I mean, clearly,
Speaker 1: right now, the people who are eligible for this, it's
Speaker 1: not going to be discriminating on the basis of race, sex, whatever,
Speaker 1: or any illegal categora under California law. Why would you
Speaker 1: add unlawful people who are in the country illegally to this.
Speaker 1: It doesn't make any sense unless you're gonna allocate you know,
Speaker 1: six hundred million more dollars to this program. It doesn't
Speaker 1: make any sense. You're necessarily going to be shoving out
Speaker 1: actual citizens of the United States or even actual legal
Speaker 1: you know, legal resident aliens, people who are not yet
Speaker 1: American citizens but are in fact living in the country legally.
Speaker 1: You're going to be shoving all of them out of
Speaker 1: the way in favor of people who are not legally
Speaker 1: living in the country.
Speaker 2: Why.
Speaker 1: And also this is you know, let's talk about this.
Speaker 1: California has tons of problems with housing affordability. The only
Speaker 1: solution that the state legislature can possibly think of, because
Speaker 1: to actually address the problem of housing affordable ability would
Speaker 1: require some solutions that liberals refuse to do. Eliminating certain
Speaker 1: California environmental laws that make buying homes extremely extremely extremely expensive,
Speaker 1: getting rid of SEQUA, giving people more latitude to build
Speaker 1: in more places. There are all these California laws that
Speaker 1: make it harder to build, which California refuses to address.
Speaker 1: They don't do anything to help there be more supply
Speaker 1: so that the cost could actually go down.
Speaker 2: So what do they do? They just subsidize the demand.
Speaker 1: Here's another program for here's another grant of state money
Speaker 1: for first time home buyers, which of course has an
Speaker 1: inflationary effect upon the housing market in general and just
Speaker 1: causes this vicious cycle when home owners know that there's
Speaker 1: all this free funny money out there for all these
Speaker 1: different kinds of categories of home buyers, that they can
Speaker 1: get a bunch of state assistants. Well, if you know,
Speaker 1: someone could get like if you know, all the first
Speaker 1: time home buyers in Callifornia could get let's say, fifty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars apiece for buying their first new home, why
Speaker 1: not just jack your price up by fifty thousand. That's
Speaker 1: the inflationary effect that programs like this tend to have.
Speaker 1: Why we're doing this program in the first place kind
Speaker 1: of baffles me let alone. Then expanding it to illegal aliens,
Speaker 1: which again I repeat, what bank is going to want
Speaker 1: to give a mortgage to someone who's living here illegally,
Speaker 1: who might be giving you, I mean, to continue living
Speaker 1: in the United States illegally. You often have to lie
Speaker 1: about various kinds of like give fake social Security number
Speaker 1: or something like why would a bank want to deal
Speaker 1: with someone who's living here illegally who could get deported?
Speaker 1: I just don't understand the mechanism of how this is
Speaker 1: even supposed to work, even if you take away any
Speaker 1: value judgments about the morality or immorality of giving this
Speaker 1: limited resource to people who are not legally supposed to
Speaker 1: be here as opposed to actual California citizens or actual
Speaker 1: American citizens, or or you know, immigrants who are not
Speaker 1: yet citizens but who are here legally. I just don't
Speaker 1: even don't even understand why this would work. It's stupid
Speaker 1: from like ten different angles. When we return gearing up
Speaker 1: for college football in the Girardi House next on The
Speaker 1: John Girardi Show, Thank God, Mercifully, football is coming back.
Speaker 1: College football is coming back in a big way. We've
Speaker 1: got the Bulldogs taking on Michigan on Saturday, my own
Speaker 1: Notre Dame fighting Irish, getting the season kicked off with
Speaker 1: Texas A and M A couple of things that are
Speaker 1: just reminding me of how desperately I've missed football and
Speaker 1: the ways in which I'm indoctrinating my children.
Speaker 2: So I hate Michigan.
Speaker 1: I had a couple full of games where Notre Dame
Speaker 1: played Michigan when I was in law school, where Notre
Speaker 1: Dame lost in very dramatic fashion, and I believe it
Speaker 1: was in twenty ten and twenty eleven, where Michigan had
Speaker 1: this quarterback Denard Robinson who must have thrown for four
Speaker 1: hundred yards and run for two hundred yards.
Speaker 2: I'm exaggerating a bit, but.
Speaker 1: Certainly threw for three hundred yards ran for over one
Speaker 1: hundred yards in both of those games, looked like the
Speaker 1: Heisman Trophy winner, and then immediately after playing Notre Dame
Speaker 1: he looked completely ordinary. So I despise Michigan. I have
Speaker 1: these scars for these games against Michigan. I saw a
Speaker 1: guy driving around the other day in a F one
Speaker 1: P fifty jacked up with a big Michigan National Champions
Speaker 1: bumper sticker on it, and it just filled me with rage.
Speaker 2: So I know I'm ready. The other thing, I know,
Speaker 2: I've indoctrinated.
Speaker 1: My kids to be angry at Brian Kelly because he
Speaker 1: left Notre Dame for LSU and more money. And so
Speaker 1: my kids are seriously asking me, Daddy, who are we
Speaker 1: supposed to root for? Because USC is LSU and we
Speaker 1: don't like either one of them. Who are we supposed
Speaker 1: to root for? This is how I know I'm a
Speaker 1: good father. It makes me very proud of my children
Speaker 1: to understand the grave moral issues that underlie college football.
Speaker 2: That'll do it. John Girardi Show, See you next time
Speaker 2: on Power Talk